Reliability and Validity of Japanese Versions of the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience
By Katsunori Sumi. Social Indicators Research, 2013
157 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5082ab2babee29d967e9dd542b17f6d949aad28
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Applied Psychology
- Zhizhang Wang
- L. Giuntoli
- Xiaoqing Tang
- C. Sica
- Wenjie Duan
- Tianyuan Liu
- Francesco Ceccarini
- Corrado Caudek
In Clinical Psychology
- Zhizhang Wang
- L. Giuntoli
- Xiaoqing Tang
- C. Sica
- Wenjie Duan
- Tianyuan Liu
- Francesco Ceccarini
- Corrado Caudek
In Social Psychology
- Zhizhang Wang
- L. Giuntoli
- Xiaoqing Tang
- C. Sica
- Wenjie Duan
- Tianyuan Liu
- Francesco Ceccarini
- Corrado Caudek
Citations in the corpus
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Simplified Chinese Version of Flourishing Scale (2016, methodology): “The scale encompasses 8 items and has well-established psychometric characteristics in different countries, such as America (Diener et al., 2010), Japan (Sumi, 2014), Portugal (Silva & Caetano, 2013), New Zealand (Hone, Jarden, & Schofield, 2014), and Germany (Esch, Jose, Gimpel, von Scheidt, & Mich”
- Validation of the Italian Versions of the Flourishing Scale and of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (2017, result): “A similar result was also found by Sumi (2014) in the Japanese validation of the SPANE and by other studies comparing the associations among BAI, BDI-II, and PANAS (Ahrens & Haaga, 1993; Watson & Kendall, 1989).”